That Weaver claims that he is responsible for all of modern decadence and the dissolution of the West only makes me more intrigued. This article is quite long, but very informative. Thanks for the recs.

I'm also taking off in a bit, and am sorry to just leave the disscussion, but will encourage that it continues. I have to focus my efforts upon my actual education, and, so, can't spend too much time here. I hope that I've come up with something interesting. I may respond, but, otherwise, I'll see you sometime in the not too distant future.

I'm calling into question the nature of being "quintessential", and, so, have no rubric as I assume that it is the case the Philosophy assumes that abstract ideals do exist re Plato. As I think that what is "perfect" can only be understood by its particulars, and, therefore, deconstructed as such, I don't have an example.

I will read, but will be leaving for a time and, so, don't quit know what I will have to say in the way of a response. Thanks for sharing!

To be "seminal" is to embody the upshot of some entity's ish. Like, on some level, what The Byrds were was the only band who could produce Folk Rock covers of Bob Dylan songs that added something to the original tunes. I see more in the band than that, but that is a way of describing them. Them covers "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" better than The Byrds, but Them doesn't consistently cover Bob Dylan better than they did.

That something is "seminal" does not necessarily imply that it is quintessential. "Uncast Shadow of a Southern Myth" is the seminal Parquet Courts song, but "Cortez the Killer" by Neil Young is the quintessential song of that kind. Beause Neil Young was in a particular position at a particular point in time, he was capable of encapsulating a particular sentiment than they ever could. The temporal aspect, I feel, is relevent to quintessence.

We speak of things as if there was an ideal when we know that it is only defined by our subjective interpretation. What Philosophical rules could there be for aesthetic? I don't think that things can be considered to be in themselves beautiful. Beauty is defined by the relation that the subject has to the existent. Jonas Mekas's Walden can be considered to be beautiful in spite of that it is disorienting. There were probably plenty of people, however, who came out of Walden stating that "It made me nauseous." The film is not in itself beautiful. Some people just think that it is.

"Seminal" and "quintessential" do differ. Younger Than Yesterday is the quintessential Byrds album, but, Mr. Tamourine Man is their seminal album. They made a name for themselves by being the only band who could adequately cover Bob Dylan, but the band itself was something other than a project that was devoted to just that.

I do think that what is considered to be "quintessential" is purely subjective and, therefore, somewhat meaningless, but what the term denotes and connotes is somewhat interesting to me. As someone who holds perfection to be inexistent, this idea that there is something that is somehow better than all the others which all of the others proceed from fascinates me. In a way, it's kind of annihilating. You don't seem to hold an opposing view. I am hoping to find someone who does as my curiousity has been emphatically piqued. You may, of course, carry on, however.

Deleuze and Guatarri sort of let me down on this. I can understand Foucault's argument, but I just don't know what else could possibly be happening. They just needed to stop listening to Yé-yé records, it seems. From what I know, in the States, you have to be 18 to marry unless you're in Nebraska where you have to be 19. I can see why they'd do that in Nebraska. Give them a year in college, y'know? The age of consent is sort of absurd, but I honestly can't see how the fuss about it is motivated by anything other than that a person either is or knows some unscrupulous characters.

The metric system has always somewhat perplexed me. What actually is a gram? How can the mass be quantified independently of its relation to other masses?

The Olivier Hamlet is on the Criterion Channel. So, by what you are suggesting, Olivier's Hamlet is "quintessential" because it's on the Criterion Channel?


"Quintessential" is a toast. It's farcical in the sense that it can only ever be so sincere, but it is in itself a compliment. Are you suggesting that the "most typical" or "essential" examples of anything are purely subjective? I could agree, but I think that stating that something is quintessential makes an Ontological claim that suggests that the existent is somehow more prototypical than all of the others.


Philosophy is just an attempt to describe existence or whatever in a manner that is better than the definitions that we have words. It seeks to prove that there are things in themselves when it knows that there are not. You don't have to accept my definition; I merely provided it for the sake of clarity.

Thanks, Baden.

I know Billy Bragg. I've always really liked his rendition of "The World Turned Upside Down". That story is pretty great. Thanks for sharing. Maybe I'll see you in the next interim!


I don't think that anyone is contesting that serfdom in pre-Revolutionary Russia was pretty terrible. I'm sure that people will contest that Russian Revolution didn't really pan out all that well, though.

As for whether or not the War of Independence was or was not a revolution, I don't see how it couldn't be. I don't think that anyone discounts that the French Revolution was a revolution in spite of that it was beset by various reactionary political strategems.

I am going to take off, but feel free to carry on. It's been fun!

I'll actually be leaving here as of apparently tomorrow so as to not spend too much time here while I'm at school. I have sort of an addictive compulsion to engage in conversation online and can't really do anything aside from to just cut myself all of the way off.

So, if I don't catch you with the thread tomorrow. I'll see you in a couple of months if I decide to come back. Thanks for carrying on. You're more than welcome to continue with this thread, of course. As is everyone else.

I've been tertiarily involved with the Anarchist movement since Occupy in 2011. I can't really say that I've been terribly active, though. I have shoplifted in protest before.

I thought about joining the IWW a while ago, but don't really think that it'd pan out all that well. My hypercompetitive work environment could honestly stand have some sort of union, but I doubt that too many of the employees there would be open to such a venture. The back of house makes close enough to fifteen dollars an hour for it not to seem to like a worthwhile risk and I'm not quite sure how that would work out with the servers. My only ally would be the dishwasher even though everyone would realistically stand to substantially benefit from unionization. I guess, on some level, I'd worry that I'd just be looked at as "causing trouble" and eventually would just be forced into a position where I'd have to quit. On some level, it could be indicative of a lack of courage, but I honestly just don't think that I care to keep the job that I have for long enough for it to be worthwhile to start a union. Which is kind of the strange thing about starting a union in the first place. You kind of have to be willing to quit your job to start a union. I don't quite understand how anyone actually does it.

I'm sure that you're not too old to be the kind of radical that you want to. Perhaps, you can't still be suave, but there is bound to be some sort of deportment that suits your projected way of life. You'll find the mien, @Bitter Crank.

I kind of spent a lot of time going to the bar so as to make it okay for me to go to the bar so that I could go to the bar so as to make it okay for me to go to the bar. I did drink too much, but I wasn't really an alcoholic. The people who run the bars in the city that I live in just didn't like me. The solution was to just stop going to the bar, but it took kind of a while for me to let go of that I couldn't go to see shows or play songs on the jukebox anymore.

I'm going back to college now which is a bit strange since I expect that I'll be a bit older than everyone else, but Philosophy majors do tend to be a bit older than everyone else and, so, hopefully I won't be too out of place. I'm still relatively young and have enough of a vague hope to expect that my life is still ahead of me.

I liked what you have to say about the Left.

A lack of discipline is revealed when union members cross their own picket line. That has happened on more than one occasion. — Bitter Crank

I agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying, but don't know that I would identify the problem as being one of a lack of discipline. I think that the problem of concessions and scabs etc. is moreso resultant of a lack of something like rectitude. That and cynicism. People who aren't sincerely committed to a cause can become exploitable detractors. This would become less of an issue if people were more meaningfully engaged in a political project. I would probably advance some sort of prefigurative praxis. Granted, I'm a bit of lifestylist and a utopian idealist who isn't too terribly involved with the labor movement.

I've gotten INFP and ENFP when I've taken the personality test before. I can be kind of awkward as well as the life of the party.

When I was still milling around the bars in town, I used to liken myself to the lonely boy out on the weekend. I've cut my hair since then and don't think that I'm too much like that anymore.

I feel like I'm sort of gloomy. I kind of sulk a lot.

I'm not just gloomy, but I'm not really sure what to say about myself other than that.

You do eventually learn how to articulate your ideas, though. The gobbledygook is just the begining stages of what later become good ideas.

It's so inadequate. These people are fucking shame-less, because they don't operate on the field of ethics, they operate on the field of politics, and everyone else is completely underprepped for it. — StreetlightX

I feel like denigration is indicative of that a person can not cope with an incapacity to enact an ethic. We seem to lack any form of Ethical agency. I think that is just resultant of the political situation and does not necessarily indicate that there is an Ethical aporia, however. I'm somewhat critical of, but kind of like Endnotes's concept of mediation. On some level, I think that it invokes that there will be professional revolutionaries who will "mediate" the ostensibly still spontaneous revolution, but I kind of like this idea that people will learn to act as mediators. By participating in a radical political project, people will learn to engage in politics in a manner that transcends what they are currently capable of. Doing so wouldn't involve an abandonment of Ethics in my opinion.

The total abandoment of Ethics would seem to put someone in all kinds of perilous situations. What is permissible in the name of revolution when no ethic can be invoked? Can human rights be responsibly abandoned? Why should someone be engaged with radical politics at all if there isn't something which is inherently wrong with either a lack of liberty or equality? Does revolution, then, become merely an act in itself? What appeals are acts to be made to if they are enacted for their own sake?

I've always liked the slogan, "It is forbidden to forbid", but kind of think that if you can't in some sort of general way say that there are things that you should do and things that you shouldn't do that communities will fall apart. I like it, but I recognize it is as a slogan. A slogan is a rallying cry. It doesn't have to be believed in too directly. An Anarchist can't just murder your best friend and then say, "It is forbidden to forbid." That events will occur that bother you means that you will have to delimit what you consider to be acceptable in given situations even form an anti-authoritarian political perspective.

No one likes Ethics because it too often calls morality to mind. I think that it is the case that events give rise to Ethics, however. It's just a process that everyone is already engaged in. The field is admittedly a bit droll, but I don't think it is something that dissidents can do without.

It seems like, to effectively call something "quintessential" you would imply that nothing better of the same nature could follow it. Is "quintessential" Art the simulation from which simulacra proceeds? Could this be what is meant by "perfection"? Can quintessential Art exist? Is the concept too totalizing?

After Rebel Without A Cause, you could say that there could never be a film that was as good that was like it. I don't think that perfection exists abstractly, but could this be indicative of something that is "perfect"? Can quintessentiality effectively supplant the concept of perfection? Should it, or is perfection only meaningful when considered abstractly?

Vincent Van Gogh's paintings of sunflowers can be considered to be the quintessential paintings of sunflowers. You can't, any longer, paint sunflowers without somehow being influenced by Van Gogh. Western civilization seems, to me, to be obsessed with the creation of perfect art. Consider that there is a genre of music called Art music whose creators are ostensibly supposed to surpass what one is capable of while creating music. It's not just that Art music denotes an elevated status of music, it implies that one has transcended music itself. I don't actually think that Art music exists and am only pointing this out as evidence of my prior claim. Could it be that the real cultural project of Western civilization is to produce quintessential art? If so, is this a good thing? Why shouldn't art be as good as it can be? Should a person even seek to create timeless art? What will such a project mean for artists? What does it mean for an audience? Should all Art seek to be quintessential? Perhaps by become wholly idiosyncratic, all Art would.

As an aside, by how I have defined "quintessential" I am going to discount that Olivier's Hamlet is the quintessential Hamlet. It's a pretty good film, but it's just that. There is no quintessential Hamlet.

Quintessential is defined by google dictionary as meaning "representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class". What makes something the "most perfect" example of a quality or class as opposed to just simply being typical?

Is it that a work of Art sets a trend? Is it simply a matter of personal taste? What distinguishes Rebel Without A Cause from other films Hollywood about teenage delinquency?

I edited my earlier post and, so, this may now make more sense.

Do you think that the political system could be meaningfully, substantially, and radically altered without waging something like a general strike?

I like that Chou Enlai quote. It's interesting to think about revolution in that sense.

I don't know how I didn't think of this, but there are bound to be critiques of the Russian Revolution.

I wouldn't offer the Spartacus League my full support, but they had to have been preferable to the Third Reich. It's interesting to speculate upon what the world would have been like had there been a successful Communist revolution in Germany before the Second World War.

I've never actually read De Leon, but think that a diverse set of tactics should be employed myself. I don't have any qualms with radical reform; I just don't necessarily think that it should be the focus. It can be a focus for a political organization; I'm just not particularly inclined towards such an attempt. Perhaps I should just be more active, though. I actually think that too much of the Left is ostensibly opposed to radical reform motivated by some sort of revolutionary notions.

Well, okay then.

They had a WWF event on at work a while ago. It was a totally surreal experience. I understand the theatrics, but wrestling is just so incredibly bizzare. I can't believe that that was ever as much of a cult phenomenon as it actually was.

There are bound to be ways of rewarding merit without producing some sort of structural inequality.

The positive freedom to intimidate an other impedes upon the negative freedom not to be intimidated which should have precedence. That such situations arise would give rise to that they are dealt with by communities. Intimidation would, perhaps, not be formally forbidden, but generally sanctioned by whatever social configuration there is that would arise in each and every given situation. That a person should intimidate another does not benefit anyone as it creates a situation where the intimidator will have to deal with that such actions are justifiably rebelled against. They could go about convincing others to go along with whatever there is that is good about whatever it is that they want to do without creating any social plights whatsoever. As it places even them in a perilous position, there is no reason to regard such a freedom as being valid as engaging in intimidation does not place a person in a position where their capacity to actualize upon their potential for freedom will be maximalized.

I don't necessarily agree with the invokation of "the strong", but think that people would voultinarily sacrifice monetary compensation given a genuine Anarchist society. A better world has more to offer a person than the gains that they can make under Capital.

I don't think that we can really say anything meaningful about humanity in general. All and none of it is all simultaneously 'true'. While there may be inherent qualities to human nature, they have yet become possible to know. I would posit that it is impossible to know them. The human experience is too complex to reduce to a simple adage concerning its nature.

I do not like this comparison, since anarchy is a lifestyle that can be and has been practically implemented. Gnosticism as a spiritual or religious movement cannot so easily be put to the test, if at all. — Tzeentch

Well, I have never been to an Anarchist commune, and, so, I can't give you a concrete example of what one should be like as I do not know what the existing Anarchist communes are actually like. I could pick a commune off of the list of Anarchist communes on Wikipedia so as to put forth an example, but, as I have no experience of being in any of them, I couldn't say as to whether or not I think that they are exemplary of what Anarchist society should look like.

Interesting. So you would see ideology as a rewiring of the brain, then?

Do you mean something like that Christians don't really believe in God, but, rather, that they believe in the desire for there to be a God? That's a fairly interesting interpretation. I could agree, but don't know that I do at the moment.

Sure, the biggest thing that could be done would be to stop messing around with the Arab nations under the guise of noble or self-protective bs, the whole regime change monstrous Project for a New Century long term plan they have been carrying out. That would be the place to start. — Coben

Oh, I agree, and the regime changes weren't always undertaken under the guise of Liberal virtues. I honestly don't know what can be done about the political situation in the region. The West has sort of left it in a state of disrepair. It'd take a radical reconceptualization of the West's approach to dealing with the political situation there. I'm not terribly hopeless. I think that some people could care enough to do this so as to make it possible. I'm just not sure that I can realistically effect any positive change there.

I wince and am piqued by a righteous anger. Like I said, you can only ever suspend your disbelief to a certain extent, but it does get suspended.

It's a way of evading certain questions by cherry picking poor word choices so as to level an ad hominem. When you ask someone "What do you think Anarchist should society be like?", a common response is, "I don't think that Anarchist society should be like anything because I'm not trying to impose a structure upon the world." They're basically implying that the person asking the question is doing so and are not actually adressing what is meant by "What do you think Anarchist society should be like?" All that you're asking is that ey clarify eir position concerning eir endgame.

I've heard a lot of Anarchists imply that creating society is somehow sort of Fascist. I think that it's ultimately a means to dismiss an argument without really having to debate it, but do think that whatever form of society there is that would be should spontaneously arise. I state such things for the sake of being brief, but perhaps I should do more to suggest that it is that there is a society which spontenously arises.

I find articulating what I parcel out in Anarchist terms to be somewhat difficult. The words that you need to use just simply aren't really there. I want to say something like "the spontaneous organization of society", but it would ultimately be the case that it wouldn't be organized. You don't want for there to be a formal structure in the form of a heirarchy. So you could say "the spontaneous configuration of society" which means what you mean more expliitly, but I wonder if whoever it is that you are speaking to any longer gets what you're driving at.

I think that "the spontaneous configuration of society" should be used as its meaning can be adequately discovered, but I don't think that there's too much to see in being unintentionally obscure.

Because it's like the slime was really there. Like, when I play Baulder's Gate: Dark Alliance and I have to fight the slime in the dungeon, I do really feel like I am there fighting the slime with magic. Your disbelief can only ever become so suspended as it is only so possible to create the semblance of really being there with any simulation, but it does get suspended. You do partially believe.

The Slime isn't the greatest example because it comes from a camp film. I would analyze the experience of seeing something like Inception where you are supposed to immersed in the media. You can only ever become so convinced that you are engaged with the media as if it is really happening, but I would contend that the people who got into Inception really temporarily believed that they were in a deam state.

I'm suggesting that better cultural dialogue will result in that fundamentalist Muslims become less fundamentalist.

As an Anarchist, I was kind of hoping that with the Arab Spring that people in the region would just abandon Islam altogether and start some sort of Anarchist insurrection, but that never quite panned out.

I guess I do think that you should respect a certain degree of cultural difference. I think that the ban hinders dialogue and, therefore, will not be resultant in that the wearing of the hijab becomes a matter of choice. People will continue to wear it in an act of protest which may reaffirm intransigent fundamentalist positions. Imposing the ban will only It is also the case that wearing the hijab as an act of protest will let for it to be reinterpeted, but that is beset by its own set of contradictions. Doing so will have its perils, but I think that it could even effect postive change.

Imposing the ban only substantiates that Muslims are persecuted by the West, in my opinion. Some other methods need to be taken to effect a better situation for women in Muslim society. The West should also have a much different approach to Islam in general. I see better cultural dialogue as the way to go, but ultimately don't really know what that precisely entails.

The Labour Party is alright, I guess. I honestly don't even really believe in political parties. I like what Simone Weil has to say about them in On the Abolition of All Political Parties, but, as far as political parties go, they're probably, at the very least, better than the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has begun to shift further to the Left, though, and, so, that may not always be the case.

You could. If the slime film was really good and you caught it at the right time in the right theater the simulation of the experience could be equivalent to actually having the experience itself.

Well, yeah, I mean why vote for Howie Hawkins when there's Bernie Sanders? I am being somewhat stubborn. The Democratic Party just had it out for me and I feel some sort of need to get back at them. It's ultimately rather childish.

I just simply wasn't sure if you were using "left-wing" to denote being 'left' of center or to refer to the radical left. For instance, if I lived in Sweeden, I would take that to mean that you were suggesting that I should vote for Feminist Initiative or the Left Party, but you could have been suggesting that I should vote for the Sweedish Social Democratic Party, who, all in all, is probably pretty alright, but I would probably give the vote to the Left Party or FI given the chance to. My point is that in Europe there are other options.

I'm pretty sure that people would actually scream, gasp, and duck during some of the old films at things like when a train would appear to move towards the camera or when the guy fires the shot at the camera. We have just simply become used to film as a medium.

If you're into the film, you do feel actual fear when the Slime appears. There is no difference between that you playact the expression of fear and that you do feel it, or, rather, the difference blurs. You really do suspend disbelief whilst engaging in media.

I guess I don't think that I think that the hijab is something which can be considered to be socially disintegrative to where imposing a ban would at all be required. It's a personal choice. If a white nationalist family dressed their child in a Prussian Blue T-shirt, then I can see how a school might have to address that, but wearing the hijab doesn't disaffect anyone else. It's kind of just not the school's business.

If religious fundamentalism disaffects a young woman's studies then that is something that the school should address with her parents, but I ultimately see the ban on the hijab as being rather arbitray and somewhat absurd. To me, it is a simplistic solution that fails to address the real problems at hand. Better cultural dialogue will do better to undo intransigent fundamentalisms than somewhat offensive limitations imposed upon the expressions of one's faith such as the ban on the hijab.

The wearing of the hijab should be a matter of choice. That it isn't on either side is resultant of a lack of cultural understanding and an ostensible fundamentalism which is resultant of that lack of cultural understanding. As society becomes more open to Islam, Islam will become more open to society.

Why do people cry during films if there isn't some element to where you actually believe that the film is happening? If temporarily believing that the film is actually happening is delusional, shouldn't you say to someone who is crying at the climax of The Titanic, "You must know that Jack is not a real person, he's played by the actor Leonardo DiCaprio who is not currently descending to a watery abyss and who, I am sure, is alive and well and probably working on another feature film." I missed a decent portion of this debate, but don't know that you can really say that you don't epheremally believe in the media that you engage with whilst doing so. Zizek has this thing about Scanners about how you are who you pretend to be. There is no difference between the Self that you are and the roles that you enact. I don't quite know how I feel about that, but I feel like you really do believe that the film is happening while you watch it if you engage with the media in the manner in which you are intended to. Some film, of course, is intended to considered abstractly.

I have found out that the DSA just supports Bernie Sanders and, so, my plans have been foiled. I'll just have to vote Green I guess. I've just realized that I can vote in the Green primaries. I might vote for Dario Hunter.

I agree that freedom and quality are somewhat interdependent and that they can co-arise, but don't know that I would say that freedom is not natural. I think that the desire for freedom is something which all human beings share. It only goes so far, but I do think that it is natural.


They may not be compensated monetarily but woul be rewarded for their merits in so far that it would be in keeping with free and equal society to do so. I don't think that people necessarily need something like a profit incentive in order to motivated to achieve great things. Because an ideal society would be, well, ideal, people would actually want to partake and contribute to it.

There are no examples. You can take the Paris Commune as an example or a lot of different Anarchist communes as being somewhat exemplary, but, I am sure, that there is some fault to be found in all of them. Anarchism is relatively new theory of what society should be like which has never been effectively tried. Had it been, I am sure that there would be a lot more Anarchists in the world. Suggesting that Anarchism fails because it never went anywhere is like suggesting that because the Gnostics were never able to overcome that most of the Christian faith regarded them as being heretics that they must've been wrong. They may have been wrong, but that they never successfully proselytized is not evidence of this.


There is no main left-wing party in the United States, though. I plan on voting for the Democratic Socialists of America if they put up a candidate. It's partially out of spite as the Democratic Party will consider that to be a vote that has been lost, but partially sincere as I do think that political parties should be more like the DSA.